The system by which one local authority handling local government responsibilities could, under section 27 of the Children Act 1989 and with mandatory effect, request another authority to assist in relation to housing did not apply as between departments within the same local authority.

Turner J, sitting in the Administrative Court of the Queen’s Bench Division, so held in dismissing the claim of C1 and C2, by their mother and litigation friend, for judicial review of the decision of the defendant local authority, Hackney London Borough Council, not to re-house the claimants and their mother subsequent to an order of the High Court made with the parties’ consent that the defendant’s children’s services department should write a letter to its housing department requesting provision for the family of a three bedroom property adequate for their needs.

TURNER J said that the claim was brought (by their mother and litigation friend) on behalf of a five-year-old girl and a four-year-old boy. They lived in social housing accommodation with their mother. Unfortunately that consisted of a one bedroom flat. It was accepted that the flat was not suitable for them and that the family needed a three bedroom flat with access to outdoor space. The claim for judicial review was brought with a view to requiring the defendant to provide such accommodation forthwith. The defendant’s children’s services department wrote a letter to its housing department requesting that the family should be provided with a three bedroom property with access to outdoor space. Section 27 of the 1989 Act provided that where an authority made a request for help with its Part III functions to a section 27(3) designated legal person, then the requested authority “(2) … shall comply with the request if it is compatible with their own statutory or other duties and obligations …” The designated legal persons were described in the Act as “(a) any local authority … (c) any local housing authority…”, which by statutory definition included the council of a London borough. The London borough of Hackney could not be an authority which was “other” than itself. On a straightforward reading of section 27, therefore, the consequences of subsection (2) did not arise in circumstances in which, as here, one department of a London borough requested the help of another department of the same London borough. If Parliament had intended that section 27 should cover the relationship between different departments within the same authority then it could easily have expressly provided for that. Section 27 of the 1989 Act did not apply to a situation in which one department requested help from another department within the same authority. The claim for judicial review therefore failed.